October 8th, 2007
02:00 PM ET
7 years ago

Liberal groups target Republicans over kids heathcare veto

Democratic members of Congress applaud shortly after signing legislation for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) legislation

WASHINGTON (CNN) - As House members are at home for the Columbus Day weekend, a coalition of labor and advocacy groups, including the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org, is stepping up the battle over the federal children's health-care program, known as SCHIP. The coalition rolled out a nearly $1 million television ad campaign and is targeting about 20 Republicans to vote to override the president's veto of the bill.

The national ad, sponsored by Americans United for Change, an umbrella group of liberal organizations, is running on cable networks. It includes images of a baby and other children with an announcer saying "George Bush just vetoed Abby." The coalition also promises to rally activists in districts of another 20 House Republicans over the next two weeks.

This push by Democratic groups comes on top of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's efforts to zero in on eight House Republicans who opposed the bill. The campaign arm started running radio ads and funding automated calls to voters last week in districts it considers competitive for Democratic challengers.

Full story

– CNN Congressional Producer Dierdre Walsh


Filed under: SCHIP
soundoff (59 Responses)
  1. Ryan, New York, NY

    First, the Democrat party was exposed for celebrating every bogus, phony "soldier" claiming to have won a war. Now, the Democrat party, in its attempt to forcibly collectivize one seventh of the booming, booming, booming Bush economy, has been exposed for exploiting a small child by having said child read their socialist talking points during the Democrat party weekly radio address. The child's parents live in a home worth at least $500,000 and spend $40,000 per year to send two kids to private schools, and the treason party wants the American tax payer to provide health insurance for these parents' children.

    Posted By Tom, Texas, USA : October 8, 2007 2:42 pm

    Boy, you and Malkin, the National Review and all of the other right wing bloggers are having a field day promoting all these mistruths. Not to mention that you're attacking a 12-year old who was nearly killed in a car accident. You guys have sunk to an all-time low now. Congrats.

    Now for the facts in instead of your uninformed talking points. The parents' house is now worth $500K, but they bought it for $55K 16 years ago when the neighborhood wasn't very safe. Now you're complaining because it's worth a lot because property values have raised after their purchase. 2nd, they spend $500 a year on tuition, not $40K for those private schools. Both children are covered by scholarships and the daughter's "private school" is a school for children with the sort of brain injuries that the girl received. The state pays for that, which I'm sure infuriates you, but it's not exactly the prep school that you're making it out to be. The family hasn't made more than $50,000 combined in any of the past few years. If you go over to Malkin's site, she even states that their neighbor told her that the Frosts were "stuggling" when she Michelle starting bothering the family at home.

    By the way, these kids were covered under the OLD CHIP program, so are you now saying that the level of that program is too high? Would you have been happier had CHIP not covered them and they couldn't have received the medical attention necessary? That way, maybe Maryland could have lucked out when the girl died, that way they wouldn't have to subsidize her special education, too?

    October 9, 2007 11:06 am at 11:06 am |
  2. Ryan, New York, NY

    Gee Daniel, are you an Econ major? Just wondering how you reached your conclusions that a weak dollar (against foreign markets) means bad things for the US?

    Considering stronger currencies provide tourism here in the states, greater exports versus imports (our goods are cheaper to buy), etc. HOW exactly does a weak dollar abroad hurt America? (Actually the "billionaires" get hurt since they're more likely to travel/live abroad – costing them more for their bottle of french wine).

    Posted By Henry Tucker, Ga : October 8, 2007 5:56 pm

    Are you kidding? Have you looked at the tourism numbers in the last 5 years? No one wants to come here because we make traveling such a pain. There's an industry wide problem that's been reported numerous times. All of Europe's tourism rates are skyrocketing, meanwhile, the US is sinking because of our image abroad. You're right, we SHOULD be capitalizing on the low worth of the dollar, as that's one of the few benefits of having low exchange rates, but we can't even get that part right.

    And regarding how it only hurts those that shop outside of the US and "french wine," do you realize how much of an import-export deficit this country runs at? It's not just wine, it's everything that we bring in. Now I realize you probably want everything "Made in the USA," but you wouldn't be able to buy it at Wal-Mart if it were since it'd be too expensive to create even at the US's minimum wage rates.

    October 9, 2007 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  3. Daniel, Atlanta GA

    Gee Daniel, are you an Econ major? Just wondering how you reached your conclusions that a weak dollar (against foreign markets) means bad things for the US?

    Considering stronger currencies provide tourism here in the states, greater exports versus imports (our goods are cheaper to buy), etc. HOW exactly does a weak dollar abroad hurt America? (Actually the "billionaires" get hurt since they're more likely to travel/live abroad – costing them more for their bottle of french wine).

    Posted By Henry Tucker, Ga : October 8, 2007 5:56 pm

    -

    Let's see: when a weak US dollar dampens foreign investment, that forces higher yields on government bonds. And that would have a direct impact on a variety of interest rates paid by American consumers, American businesses, mortgage rates, etc. It also means that goods produced overseas (with little domestic competition) will cost more for Americans and add to our enormous existing trade deficit. It would raise prices for companies that buy raw materials and parts elsewhere, which means, once again, higher prices for you and me (if not that, layoffs! Yay!)

    The benefits, which you mentioned, are improved tourism (come visit our devalued nation with all your Euros!) and increased sales overseas for certain huge U.S. corporations. But does that benefit the average American? I would argue no, neither of those things are particularly preferable to a strong dollar.

    No, I'm not an economics major or even a college student (anymore). But I find it interesting that an educated person can consider Bush's formula of "increase spending while descreasing income" remotely intelligent or sustainable.

    Help me out here, what am I missing?

    October 9, 2007 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  4. Chris, Middletown, CT

    STUPID STUPID STUPID!! OMG – they rely on you guys to be this dumb....the Democrats could of added 20 billion to this bill...and it would be passed....MORONS!! The very same Democrats could of added the 20 billion..and it would be passed....if they felt it needed more funding (to complete their socialist agenda) – they could of gone back....but....it wouldn't give them this photo opt – anyone above who said "shame on Bush" – etc – are morons who are being played by a party playing political games....truthfully I am sickened by the fact that they can pull the wool over your eyes (btw....THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE WAR TOO....AND FUNDED IT) – in case you weren't aware

    October 9, 2007 01:35 pm at 1:35 pm |
  5. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Ryan – Ny Ny,

    Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?? Try doing a little research to get FACTS:

    Tourism: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.general_information.inbound_overview.html

    Tourism: 25% increase in visitors since 2003
    2003 – visitors to US = 41 Million
    2006 – visitors to US = 51 Million

    Tourism: 33% increase in $ spent by tourists:
    2003 – spent by tourists in US = $80 Billion
    2006 – spent by tourists in US = $107 Billion

    The US Trade Deficit has lowered 18% over just the last year:http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp

    Aug 2006 – trade deficit = 680 Billion
    Today – trade deficit = 560 Billion

    How again has the "weak" US dollar hurt our economy? Please provide REAL information other than your anectodal evidence ("because you say so"). The fact is – a weak US dollar helps our economy in many respects. Spouting how it's a problem indicates your lack of understanding.

    October 9, 2007 01:45 pm at 1:45 pm |
  6. JB Boston MA

    Thanks Henry- You beat me to it.

    People throw out these insane statements and hope no one will follow up on it. I was accused of being a blind believer in what Bush says, and told $83,000 is not the accurate amount. A little research and it was proved to be accurate.

    Not one Dubya hater has been willing to address the issues of this bill.

    No one is saying that children don't deserve healthcare. Most here just have a problem with age and income requirements, and the funding.

    Would someone in favor of this bill like to address those issues?

    I doubt it. Would rather say insane things like. . .

    "Republicans are sick people" and

    "we can send our kids to iraq, but can't give them healthcare".

    Neither of those statements address the issue and truthfully just make you look dumb.

    I thought dems prided themselves on being educated.

    Not showing it here. Surprise me and someone address the issues.

    October 9, 2007 04:27 pm at 4:27 pm |
  7. Daniel, Atlanta GA

    Good to see you ignored my comments entirely, Henry. Keep spouting those tourism figures, it'll keep your head in the sand for a long time.

    I ask you again: how is the Bush economic model of 'increased spending with decreased income' remotely sustainable?

    I assume you've taken an economics course, this kind of thing is covered in the first week.

    October 10, 2007 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  8. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Daniel,

    You wrote, "when a weak US dollar dampens foreign investment, that forces higher yields on government bonds. And that would have a direct impact on a variety of interest rates paid by American consumers, American businesses, mortgage rates, etc. It also means that goods produced overseas (with little domestic competition) will cost more for Americans and add to our enormous existing trade deficit. It would raise prices for companies that buy raw materials and parts elsewhere, which means, once again, higher prices for you and me (if not that, layoffs! Yay!)"

    --

    I'd be happy to help you out, Daniel.

    A weak US dollar does NOT dampen foreign investment. Just the opposite! Because foreign dollars are "stronger" they can buy more in the US. Have you not been hearing the complaints about China owning a significant portion of our debt? Have you not heard of the Dubyai deal to purchase 20% of the NASDAQ??

    Domestic Interest rates are not driven by the strength of the US dollar abroad – but primarily by the Federal Reserve's up-ing and lowering of the Fed Reserve Rate. Mortgage rates – effecting Americans – are directly related to these changes, as well as "market" conditions (supply ~ demand) of the housing market.

    Again the trade deficit goes DOWN with a weak US dollar because our goods become cheaper and the foreign goods become more expensive. Typically LESS foreign goods are purchased by American consumers when prices go up. A great example is tourism! If you can't afford the $3000 for a week in Paris – most families would spend $1500 going to the Grand Canyon, NYC, Hawaii or some other US destination. All good for the US economy.

    The truth is – a strong US dollar has advantages and disadvantages... just as a weak US dollar. But to bash the President and cry how horrible having a weak US dollar is – isn't factually accurate.

    PS – I teach "Investments" involving a heavy emphasis on Macroeconomics at a local University.

    October 10, 2007 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  9. Henry Tucker, Ga

    Tim – Seattle,

    You wrote,

    "Ah, but you dodged the question again! And you also keep cut and pasting the same post.
    Dont care about $12 a gallon gas (that would be per litre, btw)in Europe. Stay on topic, Hank!
    So if you say lower taxes and a good economy are what will get the uninsured to afford health insurance, then you are acknowledging there is a problem and are also stating a solution.
    The conditions you prescribe as a solution have actually have not made a dent in the problem. So, if your solution doesn't work then what do we try next?"

    --

    Actually Tim, I am staying on point. The price of gas in Europe runs about $4/litre ( Litre = little more than a quart). $4 x (3 litres = 1 gallon) = $12/gallon. I've been to Europe 3 times in the last 4 years .. and I'm PAINFULLY aware of their gas prices!

    I acknowledge there is a "perceived" problem (uninsured Americans). But how many "perceived" problems could we create and cry for a government solution?? Unisured Motorist (people who own cars but don't pay for auto insurance).... Drunk driving or auto-related deaths (shouldn't we outlaw beer/wine/liquor or have a government program to solve it?).... Obesity (shouldn't the government pay for all our health-club dues?)...

    So..WHAT should be done about unisured Americans?? Several things:

    1. On a Federal level – insure the tax structures help all Americans, promote growth in our economy, perhaps provide additional tax-breaks for health insurance costs for all Americans.

    2. On a State Level – insure the tax structure help all Americans, promote growth in the economy, IF the people of the State want universal healthcare – provide this coverage on the State level. The people of that State can pay the bill.

    3. On the individual level – make good healthy choices (diet, exercize, etc), seek employment where health insure benefits are offered, if unavailable – seek higher deductible catastrophic plans to provide SOME benefit.

    A Federal Program is the wrong approach. Government waste and inefficiency would "cost" taxpayers immensely more (good heavens – look how Social Security and Medicare are financially bankrupt). This issue should be a State issue and an individual responsibility to improve one's life.

    October 10, 2007 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
1 2 3